This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly
no, I didn't write it. However I don't think that this deserves a speedy; a savage haircut should suffice. If half the claims made are true this is a noteworthy company.I'm firing up my hedgetrimmer.TheLongTone (talk) 16:44, 10 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
Thank you a lot, TheLongTone, the result's wonderful as far as my opinion is concerned! I added the clarifications and quotes required, hope the latest modifications are as correct as possible.
(I take advantage of the discussion to ask you/admins about two doubts:
1) as this is the translation of the Italian page - which shows the logo of the company - the English page needs another logo file to be uploaded or there's a code I'm missing to re-use the "Italian" one?
2) When I began to create the page, I started working from the "traslation" of the Italian page re-creating the "Datalogic S.p.A." page because I found out the previous deletion and speedy deletion of it - and I wanted to "fix" things at my most beautiful. Since the best naming of the Company is "Datalogic", I thought that after the corrections and approval of the admin team (and... after having tried to remedy the errors of the ones who preceded me) I could have asked for the change of the name. But... I noticed a few minutes ago that also a "Datalogic" page had been created and deleted in the past years - I didn't think so many (wrong) attempts had been made to upload content about the company, and nevertheless that different paths were tried to "overcome" guidelines instead of collaborating. In these cases, is it better to keep the two pages separated - and to avoid the shift to a unique name? «I refer to the opinion of the Court» - thank you in advance, indeed, and enjoy the weekend! --Riccardo Bigazzi (talk) 17:33, 14 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This page is not unambiguously promotional, because we re-written it completely to avoid the risk of ambiguity.
The Italian "Datalogic" page reports exactly: "L'azienda è senza dubbio enciclopedica, ma il testo è chiaramente promozionale, va riscritta" ("The company is undoubtedly encyclopedic, but the text is clearly promotional, it must be rewritten"). We followed the same structure of similar companies, and we provided verifiable and reliable external sources for each information inserted in the text.
If this would be not sufficient, we kindly require support in the creation of the content to guarantee the respect of Wikipedia's guidelines and to satisfy the encyclopedic requirements.
Best regards --Riccardo Bigazzi (talk) 16:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Good morning everybody, the flagged issue of promotionality has been handled several times by different users to eliminate unobjectiveness as much as possible. May it be enough to do eliminate the flag, or is there anything else to be done to fit at the best the Wikipedia content guidelines, in your opinion? Thank you in advance, and have a nice Thursday! --Riccardo Bigazzi (talk) 10:15, 21 February 2019 (UTC)Reply
